DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 3/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 7, 11-12, 17, 21 are currently amended. Claims 8, 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-21 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendments
The objection to claims 1-4, 11-14, 21 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to the claims. See updated Claim Objection below.
The rejection of claims 1, 11, 21 under nonstatutory double patenting has been withdrawn in lights of applicant’s filed and approved Terminal Disclaimer on 3/27/2026.
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed and approved on 3/27/2026, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Application No. 18650312 and 18513750, have been reviewed and are accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16 of the Remarks filed 3/27/2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 101 directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is persuasive in light of applicant’s amendment to the independent claims 1, 11, 21 respectively. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-18 of the Remarks filed 3/27/2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103 over prior arts of record has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of applicant’s amendment to the independent claims 1, 11, 21 respectively. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 11, 15-16, 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1, “… improving the accuracy and reliability of detection of online fraud…” may read “… improving
Similarly, claims 11, 21.
Claim 5 line 4, “the update” may read “the inline update”.
Similarly, claim 6 line 1; claim 15 line 4; claim 16 line 1.
Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 15 recites “the other token …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation underlined in the claim. It is not clear whether the “token” is the “another token” or any other token.
Claim 1 lines 10-11 recites “wherein determining the natural language reply comprises …” suggests “determining the natural language reply” has been recited earlier in the claim. However, “the natural language reply” is recited as output to the prompt manager. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Similarly for claims 11, 21.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-20 depend on claims 1 and 11 respectively therefore are also rejected for the same reason set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11, 21 are objected to as being allowable subject matter over prior arts but would be allowable if rewritten in form resolving of informalities and the claim rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 presented in this office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 (similarly claims 11, 21) recites unique features “GLM is configured to: receive from the prompt manager a prompt formulated in the natural language, and in response, output to the prompt manager a natural language reply to the prompt, wherein determining the natural language reply comprises executing a sequence of inference steps, each step of the sequence of inference steps comprising predicting a distinct token of the natural language reply according to the prompt and further according to another token of the natural language reply, the other token predicted in a previous step of the sequence of inference steps; and executing the prompt manager comprises: formulating the prompt to include the target message and an instruction for analyzing the target message, determining whether a token predicted by the GLM at a respective step of the sequence of inference steps comprises a pre-determined flag token, in response, if the predicted token comprises the flag token, interrupting the sequence of inference steps to initiate an execution of a code snippet to cause the prompt manager to perform an inline update of the prompt by including another instruction for analyzing the target message, and in response to performing the inline update of the prompt, resuming the sequence of inference steps”, in combination with all other limitations in the claims as defined by applicant.
The prior arts identified, Taheri, Meng, Majmudar, Ghaeini, Cefalu, Xu, either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations of claims 1, 11, 21 shown above.
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Palatnik de Sousa et al (US12518097B2) discloses method for masked language model as defense against textual adversarial attacks.
Lee et al (US20240056458A1) discloses system and method of malicious content detector to identify new malicious text content, such as phishing messages, malicious documents, and/or malicious web content.
Pryzant et al (US20250111147A1) discloses systems and methods for implementing automatic prompt optimization using textual gradients.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights